Why discuss Calvinism vs Arminianism in Evangelism? Starts with Definitions

[renniks]

It makes no difference. You speak as though you are comparable to God. It doesn't work like that. God is that high above us, that he can do as he wishes and is still altogether righteous in doing so. You are not that high above your fellow man, nor even your children, nor even your dog.

God can be the author of sin and still be himself? That's absurd and unbiblical.
"when tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;"

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, and that "And it also observes," part proves the op's statement about the openness of the system incorrect. The gospel is not open to all unless and until God acts.

And since His "act" is to "Draw ALL mankind to Him" John 12:32
And is "Act" is to " convict the World of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16
And is Act is to "so love the WORLD that He gave"...

It is an open system.

 

[renniks]

The flesh hates God and only loves a "Jesus" acceptable to the flesh.

But the person who is convicted, and God convicts all, can choose good or evil.

 

[renniks]

As noted in the OP - both sides agree that the sinful nature alone is not inclined to salvation. The point of difference is that the Arminian view is that God can draw a lost person , and enable them to choose the Gospel... the Calvinist position appears to be that God can only enable an already-saved person to accept the Gospel.

In Calvinism, you get saved twice. God has to regenerate you to regenerate you.

 

[BobRyan]

When you add an "And it ALSO...." condition you are implicitly acknowledging something more, different, in addition to... is required. And since that something also happens to be "supernatural" it is not something the sinful non-believer possesses, it is not something by which the sinner can approach the gospel openly on his own.

True -- it is the power of God enabling the lost person to choose.. which He does for "all mankind" by "Drawing all mankind" John 12:32 .. drawing ALL rather than just "the FEW of Matthew 7" makes the system open.

 

[Dave L]

But the person who is convicted, and God convicts all, can choose good or evil.

Not according to scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

In Calvinism, you get saved twice. God has to regenerate you to regenerate you.

Indeed .. you wake up one day and find out that overnight you became saved.. then choose to be saved.

Not what we see in Romans 10 .. but still a commonly accepted idea.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, it would have confirmed we only have secondary source evidence of what he really believed.

so what?

 

[BobRyan]

The answer to this question is usually pride . The discussion certainly isn’t going to accomplish anything important in this world but will most certainly always lead to disunity and argument and disrespect. If you don’t believe me you can read the thread and you will find lots.

"argument", "divisive" -- True about discussions regarding prayers to the dead, and according to Christ also true about the Gospel in Matthew 10, also true about the Trinity in some circles, also true about prayers to Mary, purgatory, images..the Protestant reformation etc.

Almost every stop that Paul makes in the book of Acts includes some "discussion and argument" at some point.

 

[Josheb]

And since His "act" is to "Draw ALL mankind to Him" John 12:32
And is "Act" is to " convict the World of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16
And is Act is to "so love the WORLD that He gave"...

It is an open system.

No, without the drawing there is no opportunity for the gospel. Being drawn is not openness. You are also assuming the text means God draws all to Christ in salvation, when that would not be consistent with either the passage in thwich the just-proof-texted verse appears, nor the whole of the Bible. God draws many to Him in judgment.

Let's take a look at that verse in its context.

John 12:20-36
"Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, 'Sir, we wish to see Jesus.' Philip came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, saying, 'The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him. Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name.' Then a voice came out of heaven: 'I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.' So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, 'An angel has spoken to Him.' Jesus answered and said, 'This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 'And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.' But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. The crowd then answered Him, 'We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?' So Jesus said to them, 'For a little while longer the Light is among you. Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.' These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them."​

There's no mention of the gospel in that passage. You are reading itnto the text something it odes not state. Why? Probably because you were taught to do so by someone else you either read or heardand didn't check to see if John 12:32 actually states what they said it says.

This is another example of the eisegetic inference I have so often cited in my posts.

Now you are rolling your eyes at me and feeling dismissive and judgmental instead of doing what you ought to be doing: looking squarely at scripture as objectively as possible and asking yourself is that correct?

 

[Peter J Barban]

You misunderstand the book of Job. Jobs friends were blueprint theologians. They said Job must have sinned to be punished by God. But it wasn't God doing this to Job, it was Satan.
Yes God was displeased with the " friends".... .they were trying to blame him for Satan's deeds. Just like calvinists do.
And Job was wrong about what was happening too, but God was pleased with him, because he still trusted when he did not understand.

You are the one who misunderstands.

Jobs' friends insisted that Job must be wrong because a righteous God could only act as they imagined. Therefore Job must be wrong.

You make the same error as Job's friends by insisting that Calvinist's must be wrong because a righteous God can only act as you imagine.

You really have no defense for copying this ancient error.

 

[Josheb]

True -- it is the power of God enabling the lost person to choose...

That is begging the question. No scripture mentions God enabling the non-believer to choose. I stated this as far back as post #193 and no one has disproven my position.


Arminianism assumes a point of liberty, a point of enabling, a point prior to conversion in which the non-believer suddenly becomes a believer by way of their own still-sinful volition.

Arminianism assumes that position with any actual statement in scripture to that effect. That position is always something read into the text.

Prove otherwise.

Failing to prove otherwise change your position.

Change because you want your thinking, your doctrine(s), and your practice to be as consistent with scripture as possible.

 

[renniks]

so what?

It's what I said to begin with. We don't know what he really believed.

 

[renniks]

You make the same error as Job's friends by insisting that Calvinist's must be wrong because a righteous God can only act as you imagine.

If God isn't objectively righteous, then Satan worshippers are right to worship the lesser evil. God isn't just saying he's righteous, and then doing dark deeds behind his back. He's not the force from star wars with a good and dark side. In him is no darkness at all!

 

[Peter J Barban]

If God isn't objectively righteous, then Satan worshippers are right to worship the lesser evil. God isn't just saying he's righteous, and then doing dark deeds behind his back. He's not the force from star wars with a good and dark side. In him is no darkness at all!

This can only be true if your assumptions are correct. If they aren't, then GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). You assume that a righteous God can only follow the standard you have imagined.

Do you even understand what "objectively righteous" means? Do you imagine that there is some standard, greater than God that he adheres to?

No! God is the standard. And no Calvinist is going to claim that God does not measure up to God's standard.

God rules as he chooses, saves those he chooses and he is good. If God does it, then by definition, it is good, whether we like it or not.

 

[renniks]

God rules as he chooses, saves those he chooses and he is good. If God does it, then by definition, it is good, whether we like it or not.

It's not good because God does it. What God does is good because he is perfectly holy. Calvinist reverse this and claim God can cause all the sin ever committed and still be holy. What he says about himself is that there is no darkness in him. He doesn't take the blame for our sin.

 

[BobRyan]

That is begging the question. No scripture mentions God enabling the non-believer to choose.

It is not even a part of the debate since both Calvinists and Arminians admit that the supernatural drawing of God enables all the "choice" that depravity disables.

why do you suggest that the part not even debated needs proof?


I am trying to focus on the differences.

 

[BobRyan]

Arminianism assumes a point of liberty, a point of enabling, a point prior to conversion in which the non-believer suddenly becomes a believer by way of their own still-sinful volition.

The Arminian position is that BEFORE one is saved - God draws them and enables them to make choices that "RESULT in" salvation. Not the other way around

He laments - "what more could I have done than that which I have already done?" Isaiah 5:4

Notice where the focus of "action" is in Rom 10

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
.

Calvinist position is that BEFORE one is saved God draws them, saves them then gives them the option of accepting salvation.

they both start with "BEFORE one is saved God draws them"

Arminianism assumes a point of liberty, a point of enabling, a point prior to conversion in which the non-believer suddenly becomes a believer

A non-believer suddenly becomes an unsaved non-believer who is enabled to "Choose" life and then make the choice that "results in salvation" as Romans 10 says.

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

 

[BobRyan]

God rules as he chooses, saves those he chooses and he is good. If God does it, then by definition, it is good, whether we like it or not.

until you read the Bible where God says that is not what He does - God says "He is not partial" Rom 2:11 and that Christ is the Atoning "Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2 so that what "HE chooses" is this "GOD is NOT willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3.
=================================

The arminian model is an open system... where the Gospel is open to all "if anyone hears my voice and opens the door - I will come in" Rev 3.
In Arminianism free will exists because of the supernatural act of God in "drawing all mankind unto Him" John 12:32 and as a result we have

Evangelism where "we BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
Evangelism where it is not God's WILL that ANY should perish (2 Peter 3) and yet only 'the FEW' of Matthew 7 are ultimately saved?
Evangelism where Christ "is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2
Evangelism where "God so LOVED the WORLD that He gave.."... yes really?
Evangelism where "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" 1 John 4:14?

And when someone chooses to be lost anyway God's response is
Evangelism where "he came to His own and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
Evangelism where Christ laments "Oh Jerusalem .. how I WANTED to spare your children.. but YOU would not"? Matt 23
He laments - "what more could I have done than that which I have already done?" Isaiah 5:4


Notice where the focus of "action" is in Rom 10

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

 

[BBAS 64]

Though spiritually dead,, I am still alive physically.
In this physical life we have choices to make, among them...will we serve God or not.
That is a choice we make.


Can you prove there will be an eternal life?

[/QUOTE]

Good Day, Phil

You are indeed born of flesh...Physical.

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. there fore your solely Physical choices are not pleasing to God and they never will.

In Him,

Bill